Poll: Value of Restored vs. Original Condition Bikes?

[HarleyCreation]

I'm curious what Club members think about bike values, Re: original condition vs. restored.

I know there is a lot of variables here but let's generalize in the following manner:

Suppose two different people both get lucky when gassing up in a small Midwestern town which leads them to an old shed on a remote farm. There they find (and buy) an old (let's say 1908) motorcycle in original conditon, mostly complete, but somewhat tampered with by previous owners, with some "minor" broken, worn, or mended parts, surface rusty, and with a rather crusty unattractive overall appearance. In other words: an "old junker."

Say these 2 guys in this lovely identical scenario do different things with their newly obtained treasures. One is lazy or cheap and leaves the 1908 bike exactly as he finds it. Maybe he sprays some oil on it to keep it from rusting further and pumps up the tires. Maybe he gets it running.

The other person pays BIG BUCKS to have his 1908 crust-bucket professionaly restored to pristine "new" factory fresh high gloss, polished, and perfectly repaired condition. Some parts are even made new to replace worn or broken ones. It's so nice when finished that it looks like freaking (ahem) "rolling sculpture" artwork.

Question 1: When all is said and done who has the more valuable bike: the cheap guy who leaves his alone or the guy who spends BIG BUCKS for a perfect restoration?

Question 2: From Question#1 what do you think would be the value differential (%) between the crusty drab original bike and the perfectly restored and beautiful restoration that is so dazzling and nice that you need sunglasses to look at it?

I believe this is a valid and important question to ask as there appears to be divided opinions in the Club on this subject. Please answer the 2 questions if you wish to participate. Other comments are also welcome.

PS: We're not serving pink lemonade or issuing kid gloves for this Poll, but let's try to respect each others views. Thanks.

[rashd]

Opinions are like...excellent, and should be expressed.

#1 - cheap guy has more value in the end.

#2 - he has 25 to 50% more value than the best estimate of the restoration of the same model

that said, I recall Lot 96 of the Chandler Collection; I thought it was a good deal.

1909 Belt Single - $66,000 Lot 96

Auction Results

[schmittm]

Wow, talk about a hypothetical question....

I'll have to add a couple of "qualifiers" as a basis for my answers;
1. Assume the bike is actually complete, original, and correct with minimal period modifications and parts replacements.
2. What are your long term plans for this bike?, keep it in your private collection indefinetly or resell it for a profit? Let's assume you want to keep the bike.

for my money these are my answers:

Question #1. The untouched original has more value, of both types; measurable ($$) and unmeasurable (historical). Remember, they're only ever unrestored ONCE! The original unrestored machine will remain as a window to the past for as long as it is kept and not allowed to physically deteriorate any further, it will also more than likely continue to appreciate in monetary value. There is no guarantee that any restoration is absolutely faithful to the original factory speciman anyway. Resorations are "fresh" only for a short period, they begin to deteriorate shortly after the paint dries and eventually become "older restorations". The "barn fresh" condition is pretty much forever.

Question #2. My guess is that they would both bring about the same money on the auction block. There have been many cases where someone spent stupid amounts of money restoring something and never came close to recovering his investment at resale time. I wouldn't call the owner of the unrestored bike "cheap guy", I'd call him "smart guy"!


one more observation; based on what I've noticed on ePay lately the vintage bikes seem to be worth more in pieces than they are as complete units. If you took your unrestored original apart down to the smallest component and sold all the OEM parts separately you would probably get double or triple the amount that the entire assembled bike would bring.

just some thoughts

mike

[Hrdly-Dangrs]

Short and sweet....I say that the unrestored original condition is worth more then the restored bike strickly based on historical merit IMO

As to question #2...depends if the RUB who just bid high bucks for the restored bike decides he just has to have another original unrestored bike to go along with it....After all it will make for a great conversation piece. Hrdly

[Tom Lovejoy]

The original has got the most value,at least for most of us I think, cant be replaced.
I would say the restored machine might bring in a bit more money at an action, but just because of looks. I would think the original machines value might go up faster in the future though it will be interesting to see. My vote # 1 the original # 2 possibly the restored machine by maybe 10 percent or so, just a poor boys guess, cant afford to go to many of them auctions.

[AdminGuy]

If it had less than 30 percent orig paint..... I'd restore it. Even if it meant devalueing it. I prefer mech sound and fuctional and will pay for that.

I also feel an earily bike, should look like an earily bike, and have some patina, oxidization, character, battle scares.

So I guess given this scenerio #2 would be more valueable to me. Although if #2 had tell tail signs of having many new parts that did not conform to orig spec. and were obviously newly manufactured. I'd cut a third off the price.

If #1 had some documented history or story behind it. I'd leave as is - that history makes it more valueable/desireable than #2.
I really value that.

[exeric]

Question #1 : The unrestored motorcycle

Question #2 : It could be a wash, or tip the scale in favor of the restored bike depending on the motorcycle. If you're talking only about 1908 H-D's with both bikes having all of their parts I would say 40% in favor of the unrestored bike. And, like Schmittm said, " He was the smart guy".

AdminGuy brought up a good point as well. When do you restore ? For 99.9999% of the people in this club, the dilema of whether to restore or not restore a 1908 Harley is not going to happen. Most of us have far more common bikes. If I had a 1962 Honda in original paint with blistered chrome, ripped seat, and a rotten muffler I would be rounding up the materials to restore it. I would hope that there are a few nice unrestored 1962 Honda's out there for posterity but I would proceed with the fun of restoring mine. For most of the club members, this is a hands on, interactive pursuit. Restoration is a major part of the fun equation. Collection of unrestored motorcycles is now in the domain of the wealthy.

[Barry Brown]

Any early bike that has been restored to the state that one needs sunglasses to look at has been ruined. An unrestored original is of course the holy grail but I agree at about a 30% cutoff point for original paint with the possible exception of a very historic bike such as the Curtiss v8 etc. Totally rusty , mechanically challenged bikes are art museum display pieces only. Does the charter of the club not specify that we are all about riding these things as well?
As the level of quality of restoration rises I predict a resurgence of interest in bringing back through proper restoration
the look we all seem to love, ie. a 2 or 3 year old bike ( eg. a 1914 Indian in 1917) that has been used but not abused. I am not talking about a bike with a totally faked patina applied to deceive , rather a restoration with extreme attention to detail. We have all been turned off by those horrible restorations that were done in the early years of the club, chrome where there was supposed to be nickel, shiney paint, incorrect striping, wooden tanks on 1912 Hendersons! Today many restorers are professionals at their ply and can turn out machines with the correct original look with improved internals so that they can really be ridden and sound as they did when they were new. Isn't that a big part of what we are trying to capture ? Maybe some of the incorrigible rust collectors will see others having fun riding and change their ways. Just watch how interest in the 100 year old race at Barber's is increasing. And while you're at it ask the experts there what their opinions are on this subject, after all they have a few important bikes to think about preserving.

[LouieMCman]

I used to think that restoring was the ticket until I got an original paint bike. Now I have valed never to restore another bike. Yes, it is part laziness and part wanting to keep the character of the bike. Original bikes should be mechanically functional and ridable. And of course, there is a point when restoration is a must.
I think a true enthusiast is not concerned about the value of a bike. Leave that to the investor that is in it for the money. I ride all my bikes regardless of the shine of the paint. Isn't that what's it's all about?

[Paps]

I assume we are speaking of cash value ? Hypothetically speaking........I can place myself in everyones shoes regarding how they value it. To one individual, as is, is of highest dollar value. To another individual, restored and blinding to the eye, is of the highest dollar value. To sum it all up with short and sweet????? Ones mans trash is another mans gold, vise versa..... Paps

[yhprum]

I'd go with original. I never had to worry my bikes were already in bits when I got them!
Steve

[c.o.]

Wow.......there isn't much left to say on the subject. I'd go with the unrestored original, provided it was functional. But I really think it depends what your passion is. Some people need the glitz and some would rather keep the history of the machine intact. True patina is a wonderful thing........ I could do without the kid gloves Herb, but a shot of that lemonade would be sweet..........

[Ohio-Rider]

It saddens me to say that I believe the guy who put the BIG BUCKS into restoring his bike will reap a higher return. My reason for believing this is because I think that the folks with enough money to afford to purchase a bike of this rarity would not have a clue as to the history of the bike and would want to see something all shiny and new looking for their money.

I would like to see the value of our beloved antique cycles based on a given set of standards and not by personal feelings as it seems to be now. Just look on e-bay and see the prices some folks think their machines are worth. Just as in the diamond industry we could use a given standard to determine a bikes value.

We already have the AMCA judging system in place to determine a bikes correctness. Why not use the same system to determine the bikes value. I would love to see every bike being sold on e-bay to have been judged by AMCA and have the number of points received listed along with the price.

This is a great topic that hopefully will be discussed by those much smarter than me. I’ll be waiting to see the outcome of this discussion because I’ve got a 1945 flathead that I’ve been trying to decide which direction to go. I’d really like to leave it all dirty and rusty but at the same time when I leave it to my daughters after I’m gone I sure would like them to get a nice chunk of cash for it as well. Can we really have our cake and eat it to…? -Steve

[scd]

I believe value is driven by two things, rarity and desirability . Something can be highly desireable but not rare, take water, for example. In that case it's value (cost) will remain relatively low. Something can be rare, but not desireable (at the present), such a HD Topper scooter a few years ago. In that case value (cost) would be relatively low. The amazing phenomenon occurs when something that is both rare and desirable shows up. When both factors are high, the price/value will be high. A combination of very old, original parts, in working order, and highly sought after, will bring the prettiest penny every time in my experience. But rarity and desirablity are very dynamic. What's desired one minute (at say an auction), may not be desired as highly in another context. I think this is what makes the whole thing fun. You never know for sure where something is headed unless you keep your ear to the ground, because tomorrow or over yonder the whole deal could be different. Thanks for the question and all the opinions. Very interesting. Steve

[bmh]

I know some people are in this as a buisiness, and others for investments, and to those these things must matter a whole lot. I'm into old bikes because 1 I love motorcycles of all types. and 2 I've riden my first bike long enough for it to turn into an antique right beneath me. I buy and build what I like and the value at the end of the day is in my heart not my wallet. I would be thrilled to own either or both , because in the hypothetical world I would be able to let my accountants worry about the price and value as they watched over my vast piles of money .
Brian